Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Company petition dismissed for failure to meet membership criteria under Companies Act. Forum shopping criticized.</h1> <h3>A John Thanaraj Versus Tinnelvelly Diocesan Trust Association</h3> The court dismissed the company petition as the petitioners did not meet the criteria under section 399 of the Companies Act. The court found that the ... Oppression and mismanagement Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the company petition.2. Membership status of the petitioners.3. Legality of the bifurcation of assets.4. Validity of the impugned annual general meetings.5. Validity of the balance-sheet for the year ended 31-3-2009.6. Legality of the appointment of the second respondent's daughter.7. Investigation into the affairs of the company.8. Appointment of a new committee of management.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Company Petition:The petitioners filed a company petition under sections 397 and 398 read with section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking various reliefs. The respondents filed applications (C.A. Nos. 118 and 194 of 2010) to hear the maintainability of the company petition as a preliminary issue. The contention was that the petitioners were not members of the respondent No. 1 company on the date of filing the petition, hence not meeting the qualification under section 399 of the Companies Act.2. Membership Status of the Petitioners:The petitioners claimed membership based on the annual return for the year 2003-04, arguing that no valid elections were conducted after 2003. The respondents contended that the petitioners ceased to be members as they did not get elected in the 2007 elections. The court examined the articles of association, which stipulated that only members of the executive committee of the Tirunelveli Diocese Council could be members of the company. The court found that the petitioners were not listed in the annual returns for 2007-08 and 2008-09 and thus were not members at the time of filing the petition.3. Legality of the Bifurcation of Assets:The petitioners challenged the bifurcation of the company's assets as unauthorized and illegal. They argued that no valid general meeting was held to authorize such bifurcation. The court noted that the disputes regarding the elections and the administration of the diocese had impacted the company's ability to hold regular meetings and file statutory returns.4. Validity of the Impugned Annual General Meetings:The petitioners sought to declare the annual general meetings dated 27-9-2008, 24-3-2009, and 30-9-2009 as illegal. They argued that no proper notice was given to them for these meetings. The court found that the respondents had falsely claimed that these meetings were held and noted the ongoing disputes affecting the company's governance.5. Validity of the Balance-Sheet for the Year Ended 31-3-2009:The petitioners challenged the balance-sheet as invalid due to the alleged irregularities in the company's administration and the disputed meetings. The court's decision on the maintainability of the petition indirectly addressed this issue by questioning the legitimacy of the petitioners' claims.6. Legality of the Appointment of the Second Respondent's Daughter:The petitioners argued that the appointment of the second respondent's daughter was unfair and illegal. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the maintainability of the petition and the membership status of the petitioners.7. Investigation into the Affairs of the Company:The petitioners sought an investigation into the company's affairs to ascertain the extent of illegal and financial frauds committed by the respondents. The court's decision on the maintainability of the petition precluded further examination of this issue.8. Appointment of a New Committee of Management:The petitioners requested the appointment of a new committee of management for the company. The court's ruling on the maintainability of the petition and the membership status of the petitioners rendered this request moot.Conclusion:The court allowed the applications (C.A. Nos. 118 and 194 of 2010) and held that the petitioners did not meet the criteria under section 399 of the Companies Act to sustain the company petition. Consequently, the company petition was dismissed. The court emphasized that the petitioners were engaging in forum shopping and attempting to supersede the High Court's order, which permitted the Diocese of Tirunelveli to continue its administration with the elected office bearers.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found